[LOC1]

One must also wonder about romantisizing William B. Travis, too. He was really a head strong, wreckless young man who was instrumental in starting Texas' war with Mexico by attacking the Mexican tax collection garrison at Anahuac. He did that without support of the community and made a public appology. Then he managed to lose 200 men at the Alamo in a battle that did not really contribute to the Texas fight for independence, and in fact made it more difficult by reducing the resources available to the Texans. Historical information is available at the following sites: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/index.html and http://www.drtl.org/Links/index.asp#History.html

[Proud_texan]

"Then he managed to lose 200 men at the Alamo in a battle that did not really contribute to the Texas fight for independence, and in fact made it more difficult by reducing the resources available to the Texans."

Not at all the case, Houston told Travis to stall Santa Ana for as long as possible, he (Houston) needed to build and supply an army capable of taking Santa Ana. The dispatch from Houston to Travis before and during made this perfectly clear and ignoring that fact overlooks the strategic important of the battle.

One could argue that stalling wasn't needed, Houston would have won anyway, but the fact is that Travis was carrying out a direct order.